Immodest Proposal is a place where Rob Dean makes humble suggestions that would forever alter the world and vastly improve the lives of everyone. But, you know, you don't have to listen to him, or whatever.

the resemblence is uncanny!The Simpsons is in a rut. That venerable institution, once lauded by cool English teachers and awkward IT staffs alike, has fallen into disrepair and it may take drastic measures to bring it back.

Starting around the early 2000s, it seemed there were less good episodes per season; instead the show was dominated by stunt casting, delving into backstories of lesser characters, random "travel episodes" that eventually descended into becoming the lazy set-ups that were mocked by earlier Simpsons episodes. Random changes were made to characters - Apu's octoplets, for example - that served as nothing more than 30 minutes of filler. The writers began lapping old scripts, revisiting plot points that were already dealt with or that previous writing staffs derided (rightfully) as cheap and uninteresting. 

How can the producers hope to rescue the show? What price will they have to pay to escape from the shadows of Macfarlane's Animation Empire and reassert itself as the rightful Emperor of Smart and Important Cartoons?  My suggestion: it's time for the characters in The Simpsons to start aging.

By allowing the cast of The Simpsons to age, writers now have a brand new world open to them to explore. Instead of the hilarious juxtaposition of a 10 year old driving a car, it's the actual comedy found in a teen struggling to learn how to drive from his less than competent father. Instead of Homer getting a zany new job (while still working at the Nuclear Plant), it's him dealing with the odd transition into being old.  These new real world premises may not sound like comic gold, but they are one thing: Different than anything The Simpsons have done before. By having the characters go through changes, new relationships can be created without sacrificing anything of the past. New perspectives are gained as new events are experienced; and each new experience opens up to the possibility of more comic interactions.

Never. Again.By doing weird narrative acrobatics to shake up Springfield for an episode before everything is back to normal when the credits roll, The Simpsons end up tarnishing not only their present episodes but also retroactively stain the past episodes that are so beloved by so many. My generation trades in Simpsons quotes like pass phrases of a secret brotherhood that EVERYONE BELONGS TO. But when you quote Principal Skinner a part of your brain remembers that he's actually Armin Tamzarian who replaced the real Principal Skinner who was later shipped out and then...ah fuck it.  It gets sad and bungled quickly. So instead of going backwards and changing what's come before - why not face forward and create something free from the shackles of continuity or nerd pedantry?

I know there's one group of people that agree with me: the writing staff of The Simpsons. There have been many episodes that deal with The Simpsons all grown up and in a possible future.  The writers recognize the potential in placing these characters in new, albeit logical and natural, situations; at the root, the characters are all the same, but now have different experiences and environments that cause new reactions and thus new jokes.

So moving these future stories both from the far flung aspects - where Lisa is president or Bart is a Supreme Court Justice - and from the "What If" cheat of using gypsy spells, Indian smoke lodges or Professor Frink devices, and place them in a natural progression of real life, it makes the episodes meaningful, relatable without betraying the central conceit of a modern American family.

Some people will think that the reason The Simpsons need to age is to remain culturally relevant - otherwise you get the retcon fever dream of Homer inventing grunge rock that aired recently and was then savagely rebuked by others. However, I don't think that's true. The Simpsons will never be culturally relevant in terms of immediacy.  Due in part to the success of The Simpsons, there are many animated programs out there that are made faster and easier (South Park, Adult Swim, anything on the web) and can comment on situations before the ink is dry on a Simpsons script. Due to the production schedule - particularly of animating overseas and spending months on edits, cast recording, etc. - every time The Simpsons tries to be "hip" or "relevant" to some hot button topic, it comes off less as timely and more like those awkward emails you get forwarded by your computer illiterate aunt that are comprised of jokes rejected from Jay Leno's "Headlines" bit.

The Simpsons will never be timely. The show can, however, be timeless. By speaking to larger truths, universal experiences that everyone encounters as they go through this thing called...life, it can gain mileage that holds up to repeat viewings that mean something different depending on where the viewer is in his or her own life.

"But," I hear you chirping, "by moving them in time, doesn't that make the show not timeless? Doesn't it tie in to a very specific time and place?"

Well, that's a very attractive question. And you are a very smart and clever person for asking it. Well done. Give yourself a hand. You deserve it.

You are right. Syndicated episodes will now be easier to discern from whence the episode came and may feel like viewers have to bone up on past episodes to know what's going on (they shouldn't have to, but it's all about feelings I guess). But here's the thing about that argument - it's already come to pass.

If some revision forever alters reruns and syndication, or people feel like The Simpsons is different, then that could be seen as detrimental. But if you have any change in your series, like new cast members or new places of business or whatever, then it's immediately apparent that you are now watching an episode from a certain era versus another one. And The Simpsons have already done that - on multiple fronts. 

First, there's all of the dead characters: Maude Flanders, Homer's mom, Bleeding Gums Murphy, Dr. Nick, etc. If Ned Flanders is married, then you know when the episode was made. They've made these changes due to real world casting needs and desires of writers to shake up the show. But to suggest that aging the characters would be an instant alert that the show is different and would then ruin viewers' enjoyment rings false when the writers have made such momentous changes in the past.

Secondly, and more sneakily, there have been changes to the visual style of The Simpsons. As detailed by many people, including this person, the in house style of The Simpsons has changed and become less fluid, less cartoon-y and more conservative as years roll on. So even if you aren't immediately cognitively aware of the time period in which the episode is set, your mind registers the slight differences in animation. This is compounded by the recent changes the show has adopted for HD - it looks different as colors are enhanced and the aspect ratio has changed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being a Luddite; HD is good. But it's another example of subtle changes made to a show that people want to remain consistent and staid.

Now I know how this all sounds and how it makes me seem. And I know that it seems like this is just an extension of the Fanboy mentality that wants the stuff he likes to age with him and not to serve younger people as it served him in his youth. Maybe, and I'll address that next week. But in truth, I think The Simpsons really is a hallmark of entertainment, a milestone that marks the highwater mark for a lot of American comedy. It's a cultural well that others draw from again and again and which becomes a subset of language used to identify fellow nerd travelers.

But I think it's because of how great it was that it deserves the chance to be great again, and I think that aging the characters may be the best way of giving them that chance.